It would be less than wise to invest in any form of bio-energy. Sugar cane, corn, it doesn't matter. Biologically derived ethanol will never pan out as a sustainable source of fuel. Because -- to grow anything, say corn, requires huge amounts of fresh water. We will drain our aquifers at about the same time we deplete the world's petroleum. And, plants also need huge quantities of fertilizer, which requires energy to produce.

At the moment, I am favoring wind-derived energy. I know, storing it is a problem. But solutions are emerging. It is not currently practical to utilize hydrogen, mainly because it is virtually impossible to store and contain. Hydrogen atoms are so tiny that they simply leak right through iron containers. And when hydrogen gets into the air, it manifests a far more potent greenhouse effect than, for example, carbon dioxide does.

But methane is containable. And nanotechnology, of all things, may make it possible to contain hydrogen efficiently in nanotubes.

IMPORTANT! Instead of crushing used automotive alternators when recycling cars, we need to be "harvesting" those alternators, since they can be utilized in small wind-power generators. But try telling that to Exxon Mobil Corporation!

Biofuels are a political winner and an energy loser.  They may have some limited use in the future for farm vehicles, but they can't answer our needs for liquid fuel.  Right now all we are doing is subsidizing Archer Daniel Midlands and giving a small subsidy to farmers.  

We need to get serious about cutting CO2 emissions and developing energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gas emissions.  

Because it would be a good excuse to invade Cuba.

Can't wait to see the first electric-powered commercial airplane/jet. I'm not holding my breath.

When we bought our Prius, I'd have bought a flex-fuel or all/mostly electric family car if it existed. Gasoline is on the way out and the sooner people deal with it, the better.

There is some question as to whether making ethanol fuel from crops is really energy efficient. There is a large amount of fuel used in distilling the ethanol from the plant material. It is not clear what this energy source is.

In the US the fuel is usually natural gas (although  a recently built factory is using coal(!). So far, ethanol is not cost effective in the US, and only exists because of government subsidies to companies like ADM.

So, like Hydrogen, ethanol needs closer study to see if it is really a "good thing".

Don't knock the small raise in CAFE standards for light trucks....it's far more than Clinton/Gore ever did....

The efficiency of ethanol production depends on the crop.  Sugarcane is the most highly efficient ethanol-producing crop... that is, it yields the most useable energy relative to the energy that is requited to produce it (plant, feed, harvest, process).  This is why Brazil has been able to meet the goal of energy independence... lots of sugarcane.

Unfortunately, corn is not a good crop for large-scale ethanol production.  In fact, it is currently energy NEGATIVE I believe... it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get out of that gallon.  It's a good idea to convert corn that would otherwise be wasted into ethanol but right now it is not a feasible large-scale solution.  

But this is the current state of things... a huge publicly-funded R&D program would definitely yield advances and could make a big difference in the 10-20 year timespan.  

BTW, I have biodiesel right now in my VW Golf TDI!

As for the comment about "needing energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gas emissions".  Biodiesel and sugarcane ethanol do not produce greenhouse gas emissions!  Every molecule of C02 that is released by combusting ethanol or biodiesel in an internal combustion engine was taken from the atmosphere by the plant when it was growing.  Biofuels are inherently carbon neutral.  They do not increase the net amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  Now, it gets sticky if you take the emissions of equipment used to make the biofuel into account... but if you have a SC ethanol farm where all the farm equipment ran on ethanol and electricity was generated by ethanol-powered generators, then it remains completely carbon-neutral.

Great piece. I believe energy independence is an important issue and it is there for the Dems taking and yet we seem to be saying very little.  It is an opportunity to speak to an important issue and to show some innovation as a party.

Very sad that we have fallen Brazil in terms of energy innovation.  It shows you how addicted we are to oil.

Mr. Mills, I couldn't agree with you more.  We need to explore alternative energy sources right here in our own country to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.  Any advancements we make toward this will also increase security of American jobs, thus being a win-win situation for America.

I lived in Brazil and worked for one of the major car manufacturers there. It's not like you can take the Brazilian model and simply transfer it to the rest of the world. Believe me, if this were possible Ford, GM, VW and the rest would have done so by now.

First of all, ethanol made from sugarcane does not perform well in cold weather. For Brazil this isn't a problem but anywhere north of the Tropic of Cancer (i.e. central Mexico) it is.

Second, it takes a ton of natural resources such as water and land (as brought up by others above) to make sugarcane work. And the runoff is toxic and stinks to high heaven. We don't have the climate here at home to make the stuff. And if we were to buy it from other countries the impact on the environment (considering how much of it we need) would be far worse than drilling for oil. Trust me, the impact on the land is harsh and ugly.

Third, the money needed to develop this industry would be enormous and better spent on known technologies given the downsides listed above. The footprint of drilling for oil in ANWR, given the potential payoff, would be vastly preferable to hundreds of thousands of acres planted with sugarcane.

I'd love to find a magic bullet but sugarcane isn't it. It might work for a country with half our population, twice the farmland, and ten times the water such as Brazil. But it's not our answer.

I agree that we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Having said that, some of the rhetoric vilifying American oil companies, when it's really our consumption to blame, seems off the mark to me...